If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

Vnzla, you are sucking the joy out of my forum experience. I've tried at times putting you on Ignore, but you tend to dominate the forum and many, many threads get re-focused to your objection of . So many folks take the bait and enter an argument with you that your posts are quoted all over the place. There is no getting away from you or your arguments. And, oftentimes, if you don't defy logic, you defy sensibility and compassion.

For the sake of myself and others that have enjoyed this forum and its predecessor for nearly two decades, may I beg of you one simple favor? Please, please, please, try to show a little temperance.

I'm sorry man but is not my fault that people are sensitive around here, I started this thread because I saw the rumor about Danny and people started to jump all over me, it's my right to defend myself, not only that but even though people like you hate me you love to argue with me, hence the guy asking me a question as to why I'm posting so much here.

Again If you are going to call me out and say bs about me I'm going to respond.

Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

#7 and a serviceable backup big for Granger? Do it yesterday. We get younger, improve a huge area of need, and most importantly get an important piece in a quality draft for a one dimensional player who has regressed the past 3 yrs (lol @ the dude saying he doesn't feel like he's regressed. are you going on your heart or something?). Granger is a nice guy, and would make a good 2nd fiddle on a championship contending team. But he's also steadily declining, and his value will only go down as the years go by. He's a nice guy and a solid, loyal player. But if he can really bring all that, you do it. Sticking with the status quo will only get this team an exit in the first round in the years to come when Dwight, Bosh and Rose are healthy. A team like this is probably not going to sign a Deron Williams. But they can draft an elite talent, with a high enough pick.

Some of you are putting too much value on a #7 pick for team that's no longer rebuilding and has entered the retooling phase.

Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

I'm sorry man but is not my fault that people are sensitive around here, I started this thread because I saw the rumor about Danny and people started to jump all over me, it's my right to defend myself, not only that but even though people like you hate me you love to argue with me, hence the guy asking me a question as to why I'm posting so much here.

Again If you are going to call me out and say bs about me I'm going to respond.

i think you have it wrong. I do not hate you; I don't even know you. For all that I know, thou are totally different in person than how one might sum you up from the posting behavior that I have observed here.

You did start the thread, so yes, I would expect you to respond when you are quoted. And perhaps that it is the trick. I guess folks should simply quit responding to the buttons that you push. But it is just as difficult for the rest of us to not respond as it is for you.

If we were talking about this one single thread, it would not be a big deal at all. However, we both know that the scope of the problem extends far beyond this one single thread.

All of us on the forum recognize external trolls... those that support other teams and that wish to come on the forum to only post negative things to disrupt our forum and attempt to cause us to spend so much time arguing with them that we cease to go about our normal day-to-day posting behavior. In the past, this has not been an uncommon thing during the playoffs.

You have a great deal of passion in your beliefs and support of our team. All of us appreciate that. But, can you see how some of us interpret your constant negative postsi towards a current Pacers player to be something that almost approaches the same level of irritation as that provided by external trolls?

Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

I'm sorry man but is not my fault that people are sensitive around here, I started this thread because I saw the rumor about Danny and people started to jump all over me, it's my right to defend myself, not only that but even though people like you hate me you love to argue with me, hence the guy asking me a question as to why I'm posting so much here.

Again If you are going to call me out and say bs about me I'm going to respond.

Ah, I re-read this and now I must say, I get it. Your thought is that people are sensitive and that at times they "jump all over you" and that you will respond if people post "bs about you".

I suppose all of us are sensitive to some level. I hope that you are not saying that others are sensitive, yet don't see the same characteristic in yourself. But, your words state that you do take things too personally.

Vnlza, folks don't jump all over you... at least not initially. They take exception to your ideas, because it is ideas and thoughts that we discuss here. They jump on what you post, not on you.

I guess I've just been whizzing in the wind, because I just didn't get it until now. Don't take things so personally, it is your ideas that we sometimes take exception to, and not you personally. It only has to do with the fact that our vision is not the same vision that you have for this team. Nothing less, nothing more.

History does not have to repeat itself and things would be much healthier if we would all put the 3x rule into place. No horse has to be killed more than 3 times.

Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

i think you have it wrong. I do not hate you; I don't even know you. For all that I know, thou are totally different in person than how one might sum you up from the posting behavior that I have observed here.

You did start the thread, so yes, I would expect you to respond when you are quoted. And perhaps that it is the trick. I guess folks should simply quit responding to the buttons that you push. But it is just as difficult for the rest of us to not respond as it is for you.

If we were talking about this one single thread, it would not be a big deal at all. However, we both know that the scope of the problem extends far beyond this one single thread.

All of us on the forum recognize external trolls... those that support other teams and that wish to come on the forum to only post negative things to disrupt our forum and attempt to cause us to spend so much time arguing with them that we cease to go about our normal day-to-day posting behavior. In the past, this has not been an uncommon thing during the playoffs.

You have a great deal of passion in your beliefs and support of our team. All of us appreciate that. But, can you see how some of us interpret your constant negative postsi towards a current Pacers player to be something that almost approaches the same level of irritation as that provided by external trolls?

I didn't push any buttons it was actually the other way around with some guy telling us what to think because we are not GM's so we shouldn't have an opinion and as soon as I responded to that I was told that because I disagree I'm a Danny hater so I'm negative, don't worry this is the last time I post anything related to Danny Granger rumors.

Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

Ah, I re-read this and now I must say, I get it. Your thought is that people are sensitive and that at times they "jump all over you" and that you will respond if people post "bs about you".

I suppose all of us are sensitive to some level. I hope that you are not saying that others are sensitive, yet don't see the same characteristic in yourself. But, your words state that you do take things too personally.

Vnlza, folks don't jump all over you... at least not initially. They take exception to your ideas, because it is ideas and thoughts that we discuss here. They jump on what you post, not on you.

I guess I've just been whizzing in the wind, because I just didn't get it until now. Don't take things so personally, it is your ideas that we sometimes take exception to, and not you personally. It only has to do with the fact that our vision is not the same vision that you have for this team. Nothing less, nothing more.

History does not have to repeat itself and things would be much healthier if we would all put the 3x rule into place. No horse has to be killed more than 3 times.

Trust me I'm pretty sure that a lot of the responses I get here are from people that take it personal and don't like me maybe not you but other people do and I know who the are too

Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

segue,

responding to this. mainly the Shaq trade example. From the LAL viewpoint. Since they were the team with the aging veteran to trade for a bunch of guys. Let's look at how the trade worked out for them. IIRC, they went from a championship contender to an also ran. Missed the playoffs twice, three times until the got Pau Gasol. This was in spite of getting play from Kobe Bryant that was as good as any player in the history of the NBA. This was the period of time Kobe averaged 40 ppg for a month. and laid 88 on Toronto. But despite that, LAL sucked. Even with good value for Shaq.

Now Shaq >>>> Danny. But the analogy still exists. In almost all 2 for 1 trade, the team that gets the 1 gets better. That is the nature of the NBA. And why most times the team with the best player wins the playoffs.

I am open to another example. I didn't like the Billups/Iverson Trade as an example. It really wasn't the same kind of trade. I am sure there are other trades that "worked". But my guess is the veteran player was indeed over the hill at the time of the trade and went down hill immediately.

Miami Shaq trade. A very promising near-contender (4-2 in conference semis). Best player that year (Odom), a good and rising youngster (Caron Butler), a good vet in low 30s (Brian Grant) for a superstar nearing the end of his prime. It would be a little similar to us trading Granger, George and West for someone like Wade, and building around him and Hibbert.

Denver Iverson for Chauncey trade.
I suppose in hindsight it's lopsided since Chauncey did so well and Iverson went downhill very fast. At the time, many considered it an upgrade in identity and fit but a loss in talent.
Iverson wasn't really their best player but he arguably played a bigger role than Granger does here.

But look, the key is that some people (rightly or not, annoyingly or not) consider certain trades lopsided in our favor, and you do not. It's a factual disagreement about specific players, not a conceptual one about how to build a contender in general.

Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

Just my take on everything, if Bird did make a trade it definitely would not be just for the simple fact of shaking things up, you rarely find a trade like this and never with a contender. Bird said in his post season talk that he makes out a 2-3 year plan, he fills that the team that he has together right now will not be able to win a championship with how strong the rest of the top teams are in the NBA and would like to build around PG, Hibbert to make a championship team by the end of those 3 years then yes I believe he would trade Danny for the pieces that help compete his plan.

I will say this vnzla81 makes one good point that I agree with, even though we have saw Larry's history and have heard what he says we can only believe a certain amount, as a GM I hope he is always thinking and becoming creative and does not give all his plans out to the public, he can put out general things that most people expect to hear, and things that in all likely hood are pretty solid.

While I do think that Danny is one of the "Core Guys" for now, I do not believe that he is the most important player to the core, and if the opportunity comes along for Bird to build what he believes to have potential to be a stronger core during his 2-3 year plan then I think he pulls the trigger on trading DG, and if he sees that opportunity I hope he does, because that is his job, to continue improving us as a team, and I hope he would do this with any player, "IF" he feels like it will make us better.

Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

I skipped a few pages, but Bird has said several times that he will make any trade that will make the team better. I seem to remember might have said once or twice that a certain player is the closest thing we have to untouchable, but that they'll do any trade that makes the team better. Better to met though means we can't sacrifice our ability to match up with the Heat. Sure Wade and Lebron still went off towards the end, but we've got two wings that can slow them down about as much as can be done.

Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

I didn't like the Billups/Iverson Trade as an example. It really wasn't the same kind of trade.

Indeed, but I was answering a very specific question there. I wasn't really looking for trades similar to "Lee+high rookie for Granger".
In fact, the question was about non-lopsided trades, and to me, that specific trade idea is lopsided. It doesn't necessarily mean we become a better team, but GSW certainly seems to lose value there.

If we are talking specifically about teams trading a Danny level player for another fringe All Star and potential, then Jalen for Brad Miller/Artest comes to mind. Jalen obviously wasn't our best player, but he was arguably around Danny level.

responding to this. mainly the Shaq trade example. From the LAL viewpoint. Since they were the team with the aging veteran to trade for a bunch of guys. Let's look at how the trade worked out for them. IIRC, they went from a championship contender to an also ran.

It's not our situation though, quite the opposite.
LA was forced to trade Shaq, and he had a ton of control on where he goes. They salvaged assets they could, they didn't try to take "the next step".

They ended up with 2 good young ball handling perimeter players. But they had Kobe and just one ball.
They also lost all the supporting players, chemistry and Phil Jackson. Robert Horry, Fisher, Malone, Gary Payton, Brian Shaw, etc. to Smush Parker and Chris Mihm.
And then they made it worse by giving away Butler for Kwame.

The trade itself was ok in terms of assets.
(and some may even call it an amazing trade considering the circumstances. We ended up with Murphleavy and Stojakovic the last time we were forced into trades.)

re that statement, it may seem that way because "1" in the most memorable cases are big time stars, and they get traded mostly because they ask for a trade / intend to leave / or their team wants to rebuild.

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ballism For This Useful Post:

Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

I'm not against trading DG, but not to GS. I don't really see any realistic trades with GS that make sense. Even if you get a decent return from GS, the pieces you would get, IMO, don't mesh with where the Pacers are - trying to take the jump from good team to contender.

Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

Just my take on everything, if Bird did make a trade it definitely would not be just for the simple fact of shaking things up, you rarely find a trade like this and never with a contender. Bird said in his post season talk that he makes out a 2-3 year plan, he fills that the team that he has together right now will not be able to win a championship with how strong the rest of the top teams are in the NBA and would like to build around PG, Hibbert to make a championship team by the end of those 3 years then yes I believe he would trade Danny for the pieces that help compete his plan.

I will say this vnzla81 makes one good point that I agree with, even though we have saw Larry's history and have heard what he says we can only believe a certain amount, as a GM I hope he is always thinking and becoming creative and does not give all his plans out to the public, he can put out general things that most people expect to hear, and things that in all likely hood are pretty solid.

While I do think that Danny is one of the "Core Guys" for now, I do not believe that he is the most important player to the core, and if the opportunity comes along for Bird to build what he believes to have potential to be a stronger core during his 2-3 year plan then I think he pulls the trigger on trading DG, and if he sees that opportunity I hope he does, because that is his job, to continue improving us as a team, and I hope he would do this with any player, "IF" he feels like it will make us better.

I think is hard to know who are in the core and who are not, remember the rumor were the Pacers were trying to sign West and Nene together? What was going to happen to Roy? like I said before nobody knows what Larry is thinking but Larry.

Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

I think is hard to know who are in the core and who are not, remember the rumor were the Pacers were trying to sign West and Nene together? What was going to happen to Roy? like I said before nobody knows what Larry is thinking but Larry.

Actually I always thought it was one of the other, but I guess not... To me that would have been a waste anyways, and Larry would have not got Executive of the year in my view.

Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

I'm in the camp that think Danny has to go. He's a very serviceable player and I'm happy with what he has done for the team as a whole, but if we are truly looking to win an NBA title (not just make the conference finals every year), then has to go. Period. He's the biggest thing holding us back and we could get a decent value for him. This isn't a diatribe and I don't dislike the man, I just think from a basketball and business standpoint he needs to be moved yesterday.

From the womb to the tomb, presume the unpredictable. Guns salute life, rapidly. That's the ritual.